In a blow to secularists and civil libertarians, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 in Greece v. Galloway to allow Christian prayers at a local council. The Court again left little clarity on the standard for future cases in what proved a highly fractured decision. Justice Anthony Kennedy tipped the balance in favor of the Town of Greece with Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Samuel Alito, Justice Antonin Scalia, and Justice Clarence Thomas. However, his opinion was left in pieces by a series of concurring opinions. Scalia and Thomas specifically bolted over Part II-B of Kennedy’s opinion (except as to Part II–B, concluding that the town’s prayer practice does not violate the Establishment Clause.) Alito wrote a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Scalia. Justice Thomas also wrote a concurring opinion joined by Justice Scalia in part. Even the dissenting justices divided with a Breyer opinion for himself and a dissent by Kagan that was joined by Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor. In other words, an unholy mess.
The record in the case was viewed by many as highly suspicious in how the council almost exclusively used Christian ministers while professing to be open to any faith, including atheists. The town followed an informal method for selecting prayer givers under which a town employee would call the congregations listed in local directory. That itself allowed for an obvious bias but also the town only had Christian ministers. Even Kennedy admitted that “from 1999 to 2007, all of the participating ministers were too.”
The prayers often referenced Jesus or Biblical passages:
“Lord we ask you to send your spirit of upon all of us gathered here this evening to do your work for the benefit of all in our community. We ask you to bless our elected and appointed officials so they may deliberate with wisdom and act with courage. Bless the members of our community who come here to speak before the board so they may state their cause with honesty and humility. . . . Lord we ask you to bless us all, that everything we do here tonight will move you to welcome us one day into your kingdom as good and faithful servants. We ask this in the name of our brother Jesus. Amen.” Id., at 45a.
“Lord, God of all creation, we give you thanks and praise for your presence and action in the world. We look with anticipation to the celebration of Holy Week and Easter. It is in the solemn events of next week that we find the very heart and center of our Christian faith. We acknowledge the saving sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross. We draw strength, vitality, and confidence from his resurrection at Easter. . . . We pray for peace in the world, an end to terrorism,violence, conflict, and war. We pray for stability, democracy, and good government in those countries in which our armed forces are now serving, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan. . . . Praise and glory be yours, O Lord, now and forever more. Amen.”
Kennedy emphasized that the Court had long recognized a historical practice of prayers as not violating the establishment clause:
An insistence on nonsectarian or ecumenical prayer as a single, fixed standard is not consistent with the tradition of legislative prayer outlined in the Court’s cases. The Court found the prayers in Marsh consistent with the First Amendment not because they espoused only a generic theism but because our history and tradition have shown that prayer in this limited context could “coexis[t] with the principles of disestablishment and religious freedom.” 463 U. S., at 786.
Kennedy found no evidence of coercion in the use of the prayers by the Town of Greece:
Ceremonial prayer is but a recognition that, since this Nation was founded and until the present day, many Americans deem that their own existence must be understood by precepts far beyond the authority of government to alter or define and that willing participation in civic affairs can be consistent with a brief acknowledgment of their belief in a higher power, always with due respect for those who adhere to other beliefs. The prayer in this case has a permissible ceremonial purpose. It is not an unconstitutional establishment of religion.
Kennedy made clear that secular values would not replace religious values in such public meetings as a constitutional mandate and refused to require “chaplains to redact the religious content from their message in order to make it acceptable for the public sphere . . . Government may not mandate a civic religion that stifles any but the most generic reference to the sacred any more than it may prescribe a religious orthodoxy.”
This does not of course help those who do not believe in theism. I suppose, like Rome, when in Greece just learn to do as the Greeks do.
The case is Greece v. Galloway, 12-696. In my Supreme Court class, the students voted overwhelmingly to affirm by a vote of 11-1. The prediction was closer. Five of us thought that the Court would reverse the Second Circuit (which it did) and seven students thought the Court would affirm.
Here are the opinions.
Chuck – you seem to have missed my link to an article on the chickenhawk Clinton
davidm2575
… it was only 18 years after the discovery of DNA in 1953 … We know much more about what makes a human being today than we did back then.
=====================
Some do, some don’t (The Human Microbiome Congress).
Fundamentalists, who this Supreme Court decision caters to, don’t know more.
For one thing they tend to think that science is just a matter of belief.
Chuck – you were going on at length about chickenhawks and I put one at the forefront.
Dredd wrote: “For one thing they tend to think that science is just a matter of belief.”
They actually have a point.
Most in religion claim to speak for God, but most fail to live up to this goal. Most in science claim to speak for the message conveyed by objective observation of the empirical world, but most fail to live up to this goal.
Have you ever read Thomas Kuhn’s classic, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions?
Paul,
I read that just now. Haven’t been keeping up to date on the Royals gossip, but the point remains, Harry went to Afghanistan twice, against the advice of practically everyone. Some folks don’t want to miss the action. Others don’t want to serve. I don’t even have a problem with that, and never had a problem with people going to Canada or to jail on the basis of deeply held convictions against war, especially the Vietnam war. If they did it out of cowardice, that is a different matter.
My problem is when chickenhawks start making out the person who really did go into harms way is not patriotic or is not the real deal.
***********************************
David,
I have no problem with a religious belief of any kind, mainstream or not. However, when believers attempt to control public policy, activities of people who don’t believe as they do, and limit public access to services and legal protections on the basis of their own religious belief systems….yeah, I have a problem with that.
Public laws and public policy should be based solely on whether it promotes the common good and welfare of our people and nation as a whole.
Some folks even think President Obama is some kind of “secret Muslim.” My response to that is, “So what!” IT DOESN’T MATTER!!! The Constitution of the United States of America says it doesn’t matter. I don’t believe he is a Muslim, but that is beside the point.
My first ancestor to these shores arrived here in 1629. He was a Huguenot, getting out of France one jump ahead of the Sheriff and his hangman. Over ten thousand Huguenots were hanged, burned at the stake and worse on the orders of Cardinal Richelieu. He arrived in Nansemond County of the Colony of Virginia. Guess what he ran into immediately? Religious persecution. Essentially banished to the backwaters of the Great Dismal Swamp by the local authorities, he made his second escape from persecution by moving to Calvert County, Maryland where a religious Protestant was welcomed.
Our family tradition, handed down for eleven generations, is to treasure religious freedom, which also includes freedom from other people’s religions.
Chuck wrote: “However, when believers attempt to control public policy, activities of people who don’t believe as they do, and limit public access to services and legal protections on the basis of their own religious belief systems….yeah, I have a problem with that.”
You talk like only members of religion attempt to control public policy, and that simply is not true. Whether believers or unbelievers, humans involved in the political process are all attempting to control public policy. The secularists and atheists are hard at work doing this through the ACLU.
Chuck wrote: “Public laws and public policy should be based solely on whether it promotes the common good and welfare of our people and nation as a whole.”
Those who embrace Dominion Theology believe this is exactly what they are doing. They are at least as sincere in this belief, that they are doing what promotes the common good for everyone, as the secularist who advocates for Freedom FROM Religion and wants to expunge any mention of God from our coins, our government meetings, our government speeches, etc.
Paul,
If your understanding of Christianity is fizzy, it’s acceptable. It wasn’t until the theory of adoption was everything else wiped out and a new tenant of Christianity was born.
With Jesus it was a policia las well as power struggle by the Jewish think his name was cleophias or something like that and of course the roman that wanted. Nothing to do with the blood on his hands.
Your understanding of Christianity basis and orgin is a little more than fuzzy it’s disingenuous at best. That’s the problem with folks that posses a little knowledge, they impart wisdom to them. In most cases experiences gives you wisdom not books.
keebler – I have taught world religions and have at least a less than fuzzy knowledge of their basic tenants.
Nevertheless, the two groups are in concert in ongoing attempts to interfere with a law of the land. It won’t be the only laws they will manipulate to conform to Christian law. Most people realize this and will vote accordingly.
Jeremy wrote: “Nevertheless, the two groups are in concert in ongoing attempts to interfere with a law of the land. It won’t be the only laws they will manipulate to conform to Christian law.”
You have a weird way of characterizing their attempts at defining good law. You use terms like “interfere” and “manipulate.” Legal and proper means of persuading people about the law should not be characterized this way by an objective, non-bigoted person.
I am not a part of any religious group, but I support the pro-life agenda as good human policy. I do not agree with one-fifth of our population that wants to make all abortion the same as murder in all situations, but neither do I agree with the one-fifth who want completely unfettered abortion. Abortion should be regulated at least in a way like prescription drugs for early pregnancies, and probably much more strictly regulated in the third trimester as elucidated by Roe v. Wade. Furthermore, nobody should be forced to facilitate with abortion if it is contrary to their conscience, which is what Obamacare does.
Jeremy, keep in mind that when Roe v. Wade was argued in 1971, it was only 18 years after the discovery of DNA in 1953. That is much less time than from when Roe v. Wade was decided over 40 years ago. We know much more about what makes a human being today than we did back then.
David, both groups have been trying to get personhood laws passed. This is circumvention of Roe v. Wade, a law of the land.
Jeremy wrote: “David, both groups have been trying to get personhood laws passed. This is circumvention of Roe v. Wade, a law of the land.”
There is nothing illegal with defining personhood. They are using the legal process to do these things. The Roe v. Wade decision predicted that our knowledge was insufficient to make a clear determination and that advances in knowledge and technology would change their decision.
Jeremy – Roe v Wade has been chipped away at. It is not the same decision as it was when first decided.
Chuck – if you are keeping up with the news Prince Harry is back and currently in the USA
Paul,
I don’t know your age, but I am old enough to remember those days. There were a lot of people who ended up in combat zone via circuitous routes. Many young men pulled every lever they could to be sent to where the action was. George H.W. Bush did the same. Wealthy and connected, he went too, and was the youngest Naval aviator the Navy had before or since.
Theodore Roosevelt, Jr. and Simon Fraser, the 15th Lord Lovat, were generals, but they were among the first ashore on D-Day. Both could have stayed at desk jobs. The famous author, Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, could have gotten any desk job he wanted, but he flew an F-5B (photo-reconnaissance version of the P-38), and was shot down. For that matter, Joseph Kennedy, Jr. could have done other things besides becoming a B-17 pilot, volunteering for the job of flying an explosive loaded drone in the top-secret Operation Aphrodite project.
Are you aware that Prince Harry is now on his second tour of Afghanistan as an Apache gunship pilot? He is a party guy too, but from what I read, he is also a hell of a pilot.
Some men and women go when duty calls. Others hide out behind multiple student deferments, go AWOL, or go on a “missionary trip” and live in a Paris apartment. I seem to remember one fellow who didn’t take a bath or wipe his behind for weeks in order to avoid the call of duty. According to neo-con spinmeisters (some of whom are on this board–you know who you are), they are patriots all, but politicians like Max Cleland, Tammy Duckworth and John Kerry are not.
Po, I would love to comment in a most uncivil way. But, I am being watched for uncivil comments. I agree with everything you said though.
My understanding is that Mohammad adopted the teachings of Judaism as well as the philophsy of Jesus that may or may not have been the son of god. He saw the message as valuable to human life. Now what the people have determined that Mohammed said today is very different in my opinion of what he said then.
Keebler – given your post to po, I would suggest more reading on Mohammed and Islam. In my opinion your understanding is a little fuzzy.
David
Then it’s time for the Holy War, the Christian Militias are gearing up as we speak, right?
Sarcasm.
Stung!
A swarm of new media stories on young George W. Bush’s dereliction of duty pops his heroic-leadership bubble.
Eric Boehlert
Sep 9, 2004
http://www.salon.com/2004/09/09/bush_guard_duty/
Excerpt:
On Feb. 13, as controversy swirled around President Bush’s service in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War, the White House released more than 400 pages of documents on the press corps, proving, it claimed, that Bush had served honorably and fulfilled his commitment. The sudden rush of records, often redundant, jumbled and out of chronological order, generally left reporters baffled. From Bush’s point of view, the document dump was a political success, as the controversy cooled and the paper trail ran dry.
In retrospect, it’s doubtful that even White House aides understood all the information embedded in the records, specifically the payroll documents. It’s also unlikely they realized how damaging the information could be when read in the proper context. Seven months later, the document dump is coming back to haunt the White House, thanks to researcher Paul Lukasiak, who has spent that time closely examining the paperwork, and more important, analyzing U.S. statutory law, Department of Defense regulations, and Air Force policies and procedures of the 1960s and 1970s. As a result, Lukasiak arrived at the overwhelming conclusion that not only did Bush walk away from his final two years of military obligation, coming dangerously close to desertion, but he attempted to cover up his absenteeism through swindle and fraud.
Lukasiak’s findings, detailed on his Web site the AWOL Project, have since been bolstered and augmented by independent research by the Boston Globe and the Associated Press. On Wednesday, CBS News reported what may be among the most damaging details yet: that Bush’s squadron commander, the late Col. Jerry Killian, complained he was being pressured by higher-ups to give Bush a favorable evaluation after he suspended him from flying for failure to take his annual physical exam. Titled “CYA,” Killian’s memo concluded, “I’m having trouble running interference and doing my job.”
But for the last several months, Lukasiak has practically had the AWOL story to himself, as the mainstream media mostly seemed silenced by the big February document release, the daunting task of decoding military personnel records, and the repeated refrain from the Bush White House that the president was honorably discharged. Among the three most compelling conclusions reached by Lukasiak in his new, meticulous research, are:
Bush’s request to transfer to an Alabama Guard unit in 1972, in order to work on the Senate campaign of a family friend, Lukasiak found, was not designed to be temporary, but rather was Bush’s attempt to sever ties completely with the Texas Air National Guard and find a new, permanent unit in Alabama for which he was ineligible, where he wouldn’t have to do any training during his final two years. His superiors in Texas essentially covered for Bush’s getaway. However, the Air Reserve Personnel Center (ARPC) in Denver, Colo., which had final say, uncovered the attempted scam, put an end to it, and admonished Bush’s superiors for endorsing Bush’s bogus request. (The CBS News report shows that the locals were chafing at interference from “higher-ups” presumably connected to the powerful Bush family.) In the interim, Bush simply ignored his weekend duties for nearly six straight months, not bothering to show up at military units in either Alabama or Texas.
The White House has conceded that Bush missed some required weekend training drills, but insists Bush promptly made up those drills and earned enough annual credits for an honorable discharge. In fact, according to Lukasiak’s research, based on the procedures in place at the time requiring that makeup dates be completed within 15 days before or 30 days after the date of the drill missed, between half and two-thirds of the points credited to Bush for substitute training were fraudulent. Some of the points credited to Bush were “earned” nine weeks beyond the date of the missed drill. According to Air Force policy, Bush could not have received permission for substitute training that far outside the accepted parameters. The evidence is also overwhelming that Bush failed to get authorization for substitute training in advance, suggesting the points were awarded by the Texas Air National Guard retroactively and without any supporting paperwork. The fraudulent points are key, because without them Bush would have fallen far short of meeting his annual obligation, which meant he should have been transferred to active duty for 24 months and made eligible for service in Vietnam.
On Oct. 1, 1973, Bush received an honorable discharge from the Texas Air National Guard in order to move to Boston and attend Harvard Business School, where he was still obligated to find a unit in Massachusetts to fulfill his remaining nine months of duty, or face being placed on active duty. Once again, Bush made no such effort. But the Air Force in Denver, acting retroactively, in effect overturned Bush’s honorable discharge and placed him on “Inactive Status” effective Sept. 15, 1973. When Bush left Texas, his personnel file was sent to Denver for review. The ARPC quickly realized Bush had failed to take a required physical exam, his Texas superior could not account for his whereabouts covering nearly a 12-month period, and because of absenteeism Bush had failed to “satisfactorily participate” as a member of the Texas Air National Guard. Bush’s “Inactive Status” meant his relationship with the Air Force (and the Guard) was severed and he was therefore eligible for the draft.
Let us look at Mr. Clinton’s less than stellar military record.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/felon.asp
Paul, I don’t know where you got your alleged remembering from. Probably the same place you remembered that JFK disobeyed orders that night.
From the University of Virgina’s Miller Center files on American Presidents:
___________________________
*Emphasis mine
Paul,
When the religious beliefs translate into actions that step on civil rights, yes. As Darren’s excellent piece about the nutty proclamation of the Sultan of Brunei points out, civil and human rights trump religious actions. Anyone can believe what they want, but when those beliefs spill over into illegal and immoral actions, then we have a problem.
Chuck – two things. One, JFK touted his PT109 experience to get him elected to office, so it put him in the cross-hairs. I think he did what he was supposed to do. However, I think how he actually ended up there is funny as hell and was not in the book. Two, illegal I agree with, immoral is in the eye of the beholder. As for the Sultan of Brunei, my country, my rules. I don’t agree with the rules, but I do not plan to visit.
Chuck wrote: “Anyone can believe what they want, but when those beliefs spill over into illegal and immoral actions, then we have a problem.”
The Dominionist belief system that Christians have a duty to run for government office and help manage civil affairs does not spill over into illegal or immoral actions. Yet Mike Appleton would never vote for a Dominionist.
Annie says she would never vote for a fundamentalist Christian, and they have very different perspectives about running for government office. Yet their belief system also is not spilling over into any illegal or immoral actions.
” Anyone can believe what they want, but when those beliefs spill over into illegal and immoral actions, then we have a problem.”
When those beliefs interfere with the personal actions of other individuals we have a problem.
The religion in your head is a wonderful resource for you. Just make sure it stays in your head and applies to you.
Paul sez, in part: “Eisenhower’s mistress, is quite another matter.”
*********************************************
Quite true, and my point exactly. What happened to a young LTJG on a dark night in the south Pacific during wartime had absolutely zero do do with any actions later in life as a politician or as a human being. Furthermore, he did not disobey orders. He was on combat patrol in the area assigned to him. Character assassination of combat veterans for distinguishing themselves under fire is not cool.
Paul: And the BBC never retracted their report concerning W.’s desertion.
Chuck – take it back a step. I think Kennedy was in the right place at the right time. However, it was not a straight line to the Pacific.
Despite having a bad back, Kennedy was able to join the U.S. Navy through the help of Captain Alan Kirk, the Director, Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) who had been the Naval Attache in London when Joseph Kennedy was the Ambassador. In October 1941, Kennedy was appointed an Ensign in the U.S. Naval Reserve and joined the staff of the Office of Naval Intelligence. The office, for which Kennedy worked, prepared intelligence bulletins and briefing information for the Secretary of the Navy and other top officials. On 15 January 1942, he was assigned to an ONI field office the Sixth Naval District in Charleston, South Carolina. After spending most of April and May at Naval Hospitals at Charleston and at Chelsea, Massachusetts, Kennedy attended Naval Reserve Officers Training School at Northwestern University in Chicago, Illinois, from 27 July through 27 September. After completing this training, Kennedy entered the Motor Torpedo Boat Squadron Training Center, Melville, Rhode Island. On 10 October, he was promoted to the rank of Lieutenant, Junior Grade. Upon completing his training 2 December, he was ordered to the training squadron, Motor Torpedo Squadron FOUR, for duty as the Commanding Officer of a motor torpedo boat, PT 101, a 78- foot Higgins boat. In January 1943, PT 101 with four other boats was ordered to Motor Torpedo Boat Squadron FOURTEEN, which was assigned to Panama
RTC – about the Swiftboating thing. The Swiftboater never lost their case did they?
Couldn’t agree more, Chuck, only add Saxby Chambliss to the list and call him out for special mention because of how his scurrilous campaign paved the way for a more caustic form of campaigning in the modern era that led to swiftboating, which, to be clear, is attacking a person’s actual record by soliciting perjured statements and forged documents.
RTC – the BBC is a power unto its own. We have no control over the British press.
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/pt-109-sinks-lieutenant-kennedy-is-instrumental-in-saving-crew
Byron,
There is no connection at all between what JFK or anyone else did between the sheets and what he did on a moonless night in the south Pacific. To accuse a Naval officer of deliberately disobeying orders, losing his boat and getting part of his crew killed is significantly different than getting some nookie. To lie about an officer’s service while in harm’s way is NOT the truth.
Denigrating a brave man’s service is lower than low, especially if done to tear down and minimize the service member’s actual service in order to gloss over the cowardice of a chickenhawk political opponent. They even tried to do that to Tammy Duckworth. Furthermore, I did not appreciate it when political operatives tried to do the same thing to John McCain, John Kerry and George H. W. Bush. George Dubya Bush now, that’s a different story.
I suppose Eisenhower was a bad President because he had a mistress? Let’s get real. Or that he was a bad leader on D-Day because he was getting laid on the side?
Chuck – Eisenhower’s mistress, is quite another matter. There is no proof that Eisenhower had a mistress in Europe or the US, only rumor.